Pope Francis likes to talk about how we have created an “economy of exclusion.” For example, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis wrote, “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion.” Interestingly, when Pope Francis raises this question, he is accused of being anti-capitalist or anti-free market.

He has invited dialogue; therefore, supporters of a free economy should respond. An economy of exclusion is something that we should find unacceptable. But do markets exclude people, or are people excluded from markets? Perhaps the public needs to consider that the remedy is an extension of markets. People can be excluded from markets because of disorder, civil conflict, and war. But often people are excluded from markets because of government – sometimes in league with business interests or other self-interested groups operating through the democratic system.

There is no country in the world where exclusion from markets is not a problem, at least to some extent. Whether it be the crony capitalist economies that are characteristic of many low- and middle-income countries or the dysfunctional labour markets in much of southern Europe, it is the least-well-off who suffer.

In Britain, there is a specific, serious problem of this kind which has a huge impact on the living standards of the poor. The land-use planning system ensures that the better-off can use their influence to prevent houses being built.

The system by which it is decided whether land can be used for housing or business development in Britain has been entirely controlled by the state since 1947. Huge swaths of land are designated “green belt” on which development is not permitted. In most other areas, it is extremely difficult to build houses.

The result of this is a chronic shortage of houses. The UK also has amongst the smallest dwellings in Europe. (See Morgan and Cruickshank, Quantifying the extent of space shortages: English dwellings, Building Research & Information, 2014, 42:6, 710-724.) Furthermore, the housing stock is of poor quality, with many people living in an accommodation that is inadequate by modern standards.

A shortage of supply, of course, leads to high prices. The UK, together with Australia, is an outlier when it comes to the problem of high housing costs, and it is a problem driven entirely by the government creating an “economy of exclusion.” This situation, it should be noted, is not a natural consequence of the UK’s relatively high population density. If the regions of Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Holland, and the UK are ranked by their density (excluding single conurbations), no UK region appears in the top 10. Indeed, less than five per cent of the southeast of England comprises buildings or transport infrastructure. (The problem of housing costs is greatest in the southeast. However, the southeast is less densely built on than the West Midlands and in Surrey – one of the most expensive areas for housing – more land is used for golf courses than housing.)

According to Countrywide, the average person in his or her twenties will spend about half his or her post-tax income on rent for a one-bedroom property. UK government (ONS) figures published in 2015 show that the ratio of median monthly rent to median monthly salaries in Westminster (the most expensive area of the country) was more than 78 per cent. Also, 18 London boroughs were amongst 25 areas where the rent-to-income ratio exceeded 50 per cent. The ratio of house prices to average earnings in the UK is 5.89. There are few areas of Britain where houses are cheap relative to salaries by international standards.

People are literally excluded from the housing market by prohibitions on building; they are prevented by the cost of housing from moving from areas dominated by high unemployment or low wages to areas of high wages and low unemployment. High land prices lead to higher business costs and less business competition, raising other household costs. And the least-well-off are prevented from having dignified housing and attaining a level of disposable income after housing costs that would allow them to buy other necessities and have some money left over to save for times of greater need.

The effect of land-use planning policies on the least-well-off has been enormous. Between 1971 and 2011, median house prices rose more than three-fold adjusted for inflation. During this time, the ratio of house prices at the bottom end of the market (i.e., house prices in the lowest quartile) to incomes in the lowest quartile has risen from 3.2 to 5.7 in the East Midlands; from 3.9 to 9.0 in London; and from 4.2 to 8.2 in the southeast. Bottom quartile house prices relative to bottom quartile incomes in the region with the lowest ratio today (the northeast) are higher than bottom quartile house prices relative to bottom quartile incomes in the region with the highest ratio (the southeast) in 1997.

In other words, it was easier for somebody on a low income to buy a house in London in 1997 than it is for somebody with a similar income to buy a house in the northeast today. Of course, house prices directly affect rents charged to those who choose not to, or who are unable to, own their own house.

High housing prices have a dramatic effect upon the disposable incomes of the poor. Real incomes before housing costs for those at the tenth percentile of the income distribution grew by 80 per cent between 1965 and 2009. However, incomes after housing costs grew by only 45 per cent over the same period. Had housing costs grown only at the same rate as incomes between 1965 and 2009, low income families’ real income would be 26 per cent higher. The least-well-off feel this problem most acutely.

Indeed just this month, the UK’s National Audit Office (a government body) released a report that suggested that high rents, rather than family breakdown, had become the biggest cause of homelessness.

The main objection to more housebuilding is environmental. It is difficult to make that case when such a small proportion of the UK has been developed for housing. However, there is a rarely mentioned aspect of the environmental problem: Farmland is often an environmental desert.

A major study conducted by Dr. Ken Williams of Sheffield University eight years ago found that a typical garden contains thousands of worms, invertebrates, spiders, and around 250 different varieties of plants. By contrast, farms often contain just one plant (wheat, corn or maize) pollinated by the wind, rather than by insects. Farmland covers 75 per cent of the UK and wildlife has been in catastrophic decline in this uniform, sterile culture. Since 1970, the number of total birds on British farmland has fallen by one-half and butterflies by one-third.

In Britain, no single policy would benefit the poor more than a liberalisation of planning regulation. It would help ensure that all families could own a property (home ownership is at a 30-year low), something which many proponents of Catholic social teaching regard as intrinsically valuable. Whatever the fears that many have from over-development, counter-intuitively, in many respects, more building on land hitherto used for agriculture might well actually also improve the environment.

Philip Booth is professor of finance, public policy and ethics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham and senior academic fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Philip was formerly the IEA's Academic and Research Director between 2002-2016.

3 thoughts on “High housing costs are the single biggest driver of poverty in the UK”

As Philip Booth has chosen to bring God into this, lets start with Him.

Presumably, as God created the Earth, he’d want us to share it as equals. That can only happen if we equally share the scarcity value of natural resources. After all, as man didn’t supply them, he has no moral claim over them as private property whatsoever.

Thus is is only just, and optimally efficient, that those excluded from valuable resources are compensated for their loss by those wishing to used them.

If that doesn’t happen excessive inequalities and misallocation/over consumption of resources are baked into our economy and our society. Symptomatic of this is the so called “housing crisis”.

High land values are the result of efficient exploitation of agglomeration effects on one hand, and a preference for spending on locational amenity over alternative goods and services on the other. It is thus a stylised fact that any policy that increases aggregate land values is good, and anything that lowers them is bad. Therefore a Laffer curve of rules, regulation and planning exists that can be measured by aggregate land rents. If our planning system increasing these values, that’s a good thing.

What is bad is if those values are not equally shared and instead capitalised into selling prices and rental incomes as they act as a pure transfer payment between different groups in society. From those that own relatively little land by value, compared to the taxes they currently pay, to those whom the opposite is true. Typically the young/poor to the elderly/rich. Not only does this push up prices by 200%, but also leads to the misallocation and over consumption of immovable property. From which we see excessive vacancy, under occupation and the tendency for sprawl

Housing affordability and market dysfunction issues can therefore be ended instantly and permanently with a 100% tax on the rental value of land. Simply increasing supply solves nothing. When people move to where demand is highest, in the long term due to agglomeration, this only increases both demand and land values. An easily observable fact when looking at the growth of urban populations around the world.

One of the most important aspects to this is the relationship between the state and its citizens. At the moment the state is a mere collector and spender of taxes. However, a shift in taxes to a LVT means the state, as collector of rents has to become a full participant in the market if it wants to maximise its revenues. Like all good landlords and estate managers it would have to get the right balance between development and enhancement/preservation of our shared environment. This aligns incentives, whereas simply putting the blame for current issues at the door of planning regulations further distorts them.

I share your concerns about the ill effects of economic mismanagement on the family and therefore the wellbeing of society as a whole. That is why I felt I had to write to you about your recent article ‘High housing costs are the single biggest driver of poverty in the UK’.

While I agree with the claim in the title of the article, I find your suggestion that restricted supply is the dominant cause of high housing costs to be problematic for two reasons. The first is that it seriously misrepresents the facts as I understand them. The second is that I hoped the IEA would help dispel harmful economic myths rather than perpetuate them and so I am disappointed.

1.

Of course, restricting the supply of something for which there is demand will artificially raise its price. But, I submit, supply/demand issues are but a minor part of the causal story behind the UK’s high housing costs when compared to the vastly greater influence of CREDIT EXPANSION.

Since 1970, the M4 monetary base has expanded by a factor of nearly 100 while the population has expanded by a factor of about 1.11. House prices have increased by a factor of about 50 over the same period. Let’s not quibble about the exact figures – the point is that the variation in the response variable (housing cost) can be explained much more by one of the explanatory variables (money supply) than the other (insufficient supply to meet demand).

This is super-harmful because it leads to the impoverishment of the great majority of the population, the enrichment of an arbitrary minority, a huge increase in indebtedness and a transfer of wealth and power to banks and government away from ordinary people. GK Chesterton must be weeping in his grave.

2.

The second part of my objection to your article is that you speak for the IEA – an organization that (I hope) seeks to make the world better by dispelling harmful thinking about important economic issues. You say “no single policy would benefit the poor more than a liberalisation of planning regulation”. This is not radical. The idea that restricted supply (due to planning policy) is the dominant cause of high housing costs is almost universally assumed by the mainstream media and this myth has successfully been installed in the minds of any members of the public who care to think about causes.
This is harmful both because it can be used as a pretext for destroying the beauty of the countryside (a common asset that pays rich dividends in quality-of-life terms) in the interests of the banks and because it distracts attention away from monetary policy.

As Keynes famously said, not one man in a million is able to diagnose currency debasement as the true cause of inequality and widespread dispossession. Is it not then the duty of the IEA to let it be known far and wide that monetary policy is destroying us?

I hope you receive this comment in the constructive manner in which it is intended. As a classical liberal and a proponent of small government, sound money and natural law I am generally supportive and grateful for your work and that of the IEA.

NEWSLETTER SIGN UP

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.